*Please note that the links to the content in this Part will direct you to Westlaw AU.
To purchase an article, please email: LTA.Service@thomsonreuters.com or contact us on 1300 304 195 (Australian customers) or +61 2 8587 7980 (international customers) during business hours (Mon-Fri, 8am-6pm AEST).
The latest issue of the Australian Law Journal (Volume 94 Part 1) contains the following material:
CURRENT ISSUES – Editor: Justice François Kunc
- The Year Ahead
- “Should the Jury Decide?” – A Multi-disciplinary Summit
- Enhancing the Contribution of Legal Academics to the Development of Australian Law
- The Curated Page
FAMILY LAW – Editor: Richard Ingleby
- Can’t See the Forrest for the Trees?
INTERNATIONAL FOCUS – Editor: Professor Stuart Kaye
- Modern Slavery Legislation in Australia
- Australian Ratification of the Regional Convention on the Recognition of Higher Education Qualifications
AROUND THE NATION: VICTORIA – Editor: Justice Clyde Croft AM
- Rethinking the Regulation of Leases
An Australian International Commercial Court – Not A Bad Idea Or What A Bad Idea? – The Hon Justice A S Bell
In the wake of the Christchurch Massacre, the Australian Government passed the Criminal Code Amendment (Sharing of Abhorrent Violent Material) Act 2019 (Cth) (AVM Act) with essentially no debate or consultation. Creating new criminal offences for social media and hosting companies that fail to remove certain violent content “expeditiously”, the legislation treats the matter of the viral spread of violent content online as a simple problem that could be solved by technology companies if they were only sufficiently motivated. But the problem is not simple, and the AVM Act instead creates incentives for tech companies to over-censor in order to avoid the threat of liability while failing to address the many deficits that currently exist in online content moderation and associated regulation.
Rituals Of Engagement: What Happens To The Ring When An Engagement Is Called Off? – James Duffy, Elizabeth Dickson and John O’Brien
This article considers the question of who is entitled to keep an engagement ring, when an engagement is ended. The 1926 English High Court decision of Cohen v Sellar has been adopted into Australian common law and provides a clear set of rules as to who is legally entitled to the engagement ring. In more recent times, several courts have questioned the modern relevance of the decision in Cohen v Sellar, culminating in a New South Wales magistrate explicitly refusing to follow this established precedent. This article examines the basis of the decision in Cohen v Sellar, its reception and treatment by Australian courts, and whether societal views regarding the nature of engagement, engagement rings and marriage, mean that the reasoning of the magistrate in Toh v Su is justified – and concludes that it is not.
BOOK REVIEW – Editor: Angelina Gomez
- The Oxford Handbook of the Australian Constitution, by Cheryl Saunders and Adrienne Stone (eds)
- The Hon Jane Hamilton Mathews AO
For the PDF version of the table of contents, click here: ALJ Vol 94 No 1 Contents.
For general queries, please contact: firstname.lastname@example.org.